Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The Current Transcript for January 29, 2020

Host: Matt Gallaway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

We've all lived through the realities of what can happen when conservatives are not. We know firsthand how important it is that we do our part not to divide ourselves, our party or our nation.

MATT GALLOWAY: Peter Mackay is in. But so far, the race to be the next leader of the Conservative Party seems to have been defined by who doesn't want the top job. In 30 minutes, three conservatives talk about why some big names are saying no. Whether bilingualism and Western representation actually matter and what it means to be a conservative in 2020. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

[Cheers]

COMMENTATOR: Eliud Kipchoge. 1:40. Eliud Kipchoge storms into the history books in Vienna.

MG: It was the fastest marathon in history in just under two hours and the man who ran that blazing time was wearing sneakers that look more like moon boots than running shoes. In an hour, the debate over Nike's high tech shoes and whether this footwear arms race is giving some athletes an unfair advantage and challenging the essence of running. But we begin with the looming decision for the federal government over a new oil sands mine twice the size of Vancouver and the high stakes on all sides. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Teck Frontier oilsands mine

Guest: Jennifer Keene

SOUNDCLIP

It's certainly an issue that I am very seized with. It's a very important project and it's one that we need to make sure that we've got all information relevant to having that oversight.

MG: That important project the federal Environment Minister says he's seized with is the Tech Frontier mine. It's just a proposal right now. But if it goes ahead, this massive oil sands project north of Fort McMurray would be about half the size of Edmonton. The federal government must decide by the end of February whether or not to approve this project. The Environment Minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, says the government is still weighing its options.

SOUNDCLIP

Greenhouse gas emissions are relevant to the conversation, obviously. This government has made commitments with respect to addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and we would have to ensure that they fit within that context. I would say to you that it's important that all provinces are taking action with respect to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. I think that no, that's a conversation that we continue to have with all provinces, but certainly with Alberta.

MG: Environmentalists warn that approving the tech frontier mine would destroy all hope of meeting those greenhouse gas commitments. But many people hit hard by the downturn in Alberta see things rather differently. For more on this, I'm joined by CBC producer Jennifer Keene. Jennifer, good morning.

JENNIFER KEENE: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Half the size of Edmonton. That's enormous.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, it's big. And it comes with a big price tag to this. This project would cost over 20 billion dollars to construct it. It's expected to be a 41 year project and it would contribute about 70 billion dollars in taxes to all three levels of government. So, yes, it's a huge project and it has been approved by a federal provincial review panel. Now it's in the hands of the federal government.

MG: How tough is this decision going to be for the federal government?

JENNIFER KEENE: Woo! It's going to be tough. This is a project that really forces the federal government to walk a tightrope between protecting the environment and growing the economy, particularly here in Alberta, where emotions are already running high. You know, people are still feeling the pinch from a drop in oil prices and the lack of pipelines. And unemployment is still an issue. States can just came out with its numbers on joblessness. And Edmonton now has the highest unemployment rate of any major city in the country. And to give you an example of that, Matt, this story came out last week. You remember Alberta was in the midst of a severe cold snap. And there was this guy in Edmonton who stood out on the street for about six hours with a sign saying, ready to work. He was a welder who'd been out of work for nine months.

MG: And he stood out there in the freezing cold with that sign.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes.

MG: Wow.

JENNIFER KEENE: I mean, that gives you a sense, right, for how difficult it is for some people here.

MG: We know that it's difficult and the economy has taken a hit. There are also questions around the environmental impact of a project like this. What do we know about that?

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, I mean, of course, there is an environmental cost to any mine, particularly a mine this size. So a lot of old growth forest ecosystems would be disturbed. And from a climate perspective, if this mine gets up and running, it would add four megatons annually to our greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists say it would be more like six megatons every year at a time when Canada is trying to reduce its carbon output.

MG: You're in Alberta. How do people in your province feel about this project?

JENNIFER KEENE: Well, it's probably no surprise. There's a lot of support for this project here. I travelled up to Fort MacMurray. That's the closest major community to where this mine would be. Fort McMurray is struggling to get its mojo back. Not just because of the oil downturn, but because it's trying to recover from that massive wildfire that ripped through town in 2016. As you drive into town, you can still see the legacy of that, the burned out trees on the ridge. And when you walk around town, you see signs in store windows that say for lease. If you talk to people, you feel that, you know, there is a sort of a sombre mood in town. I spoke to a woman named Angela Ordaz there. She runs a clothing boutique that's close to the downtown. She says when she first moved to Fort McMurray about 12 years ago, it was like the land of opportunity.

SOUNDCLIP

ANGELA ORDAZ: And now it's like we're in the Great Depression. All of the foreclosures that are happening in town, all of the people that have bought condominiums that now have sky rocketed for their condo fees out the roof because of insurance. There's condo buildings that can't even get insurance. You know, depressed because business after business after business after business, since the fire has closed down and the people have packed up and left.

MG: It's like the Great Depression for them?

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes.

MG: That's I mean, it's wild.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, and I mean, she actually teared up when she talked about the Fort McMurray that she knows and she loves this town. She loves this community.

MG: So what's the sense in terms of what kind of difference this mine could make for people like Angela?

JENNIFER KEENE: Well, I mean, it would certainly be a vote of confidence for the entire region. Right. That the company is promising that they would hire 7000 people to build the mine, which would take several years. And of course, not all of that would go to Fort McMurray. It would have spinoff benefits for the workers who fly in from other provinces and also for the 14 First Nations whose territory would be affected by this mine.

MG: How do those first nations feel about the project?

JENNIFER KEENE: This is pretty unusual. All 14 nations have signed agreements with Tech in support of the frontier mine. Some of those first nations are traditionally pro oil sands pro development like Fort Mackay, which is quite a prosperous first nation and Metis community. I drove up to Fort Mackay. It's just north of Fort McMurray, drove there on a really cold day. Ron Quintile is the head of the Fort Mackay Metis Association. I met with him and he told me a little bit about the community, which used to be a fair trading post.

SOUNDCLIP

In a time when, you know, the fur trade died, when the Europeans walked away from fur and started boycotting our furs, it really affected the economy of the community. The community had no choice but to try to find another way to sustain themselves. So the community members went to work in the oil sands. They went to work on these sites. And we have, you know, upwards of, I'd say, over 100 members of the community, both First Nations and Metis, who worked in the oil sands, who worked to develop these leases. So it's a success story in that, you know, we have zero unemployment.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes. And you can see that reflected. You know, when I drove around Fort Mackay, there's a there's a beautiful elders' lodge. There's a day-care. There's a sign that says proposed site for a spray park. There's money there.

MG: That's Fort Mackay. What about other First Nations?

JENNIFER KEENE: Well, it's complicated. You know, there is tension and division among First Nations and even within communities. Eriel Deranger is a member of the Athabasca Chipewyab on First Nation and the territory of the Athabasca Chipewyan also crosses over into the site of this mine. She's now the executive director of the environmental group Indigenous Climate Action. And Eriel is critical of First Nations for signing agreements with tech. She says these agreements are a tool to divide and conquer First Nations.

SOUNDCLIP

These companies and corporations are buying the social capital by manipulating our communities to believe that this is a good thing because look, you'll have a say. This is a terrible indication that we are going in the wrong direction.

JENNIFER KEENE: That's criticism that Ron Quintile has heard before. And he defends his choice to work with the oil industry.

You know, you get a lot of criticism. We do. That's something that, you know, we've had to face, is that Fort McKay are sell-outs, not just the Metis. With First Nations, we get categorized as sell-outs because, you know, you're giving up your territory. Well, the unfortunate circumstance of a lot of the indigenous groups throughout Canada don't understand is that a lot of these projects were forced on us. We had no say. And this is not a criticism of any government. But at this point, the regulator in Alberta has yet to ever refuse a project. You've had indigenous groups for the last 20 years who have stood and stood at hearings, who have stood in court, who have stood up to stop development and has gotten us nowhere. And it got to a point where we decided that, well, you know what? We have an opportunity here to work with the oil companies through the negotiating agreements so that we can at least attempt to mitigate the impacts.

MG: That's really interesting. What are the impacts that he is interested in trying to mitigate?

JENNIFER KEENE: Well, they'll have to cut down old growth forest in order to build the mine. It's a wild space up in northern Alberta, not far from Wood Buffalo National Park, and it's home to at risk species like woodland caribou. There's a wild bison herd that roams that area. All of the wildlife in that area will be impacted by it. Now, there are mitigation plans in place, but nonetheless, they will still be affected by this. And then there are the carbon emissions that we talked about earlier, Matt, that would come with a project like this. And here's Eriel Deranger, again.

SOUNDCLIP

This project doesn't just have a life cycle of 40 years. This is a project that will create six megatons of emissions annually. In our regions, the species decline, the water issues, our food security and our food sovereignty is being further exacerbated, that these impacts are further being exacerbated by global climate change. And the tar sands is considered one of the world's carbon bombs. And instead of us talking about phasing out and moving to new energy and economic paradigms, we're talking about expanding by building the largest ever proposed mine. We're talking about committing to over six megatons of emissions annually when Canada is trying to achieve a carbon budget of 150 megatons for the entire country by 2050.

JENNIFER KEENE: And Eriel Deranger, as I said, she belongs to the Athabasca Chip One First Nation, which has also signed an agreement with Tech. But she's not alone. I mean, protests are starting to ramp up against this project, although they've been fairly low key until now. I spoke to her from Vancouver and she had just left a protest in front of Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson's office there. And then here in Calgary, on the streets just last week, there was a protest organized by the group Extinction Rebellion.

SOUNDCLIP

PROTESTOR 1: This mine will be so devastating to the climate. And we're in a climate crisis. You may not believe that. Other people may not believe that, but I do. I feel the science supports it. Extinction, rebellion, field of science supports that. So the short term advantages, jobs and the income that mine will offer, will be far away by the time I get to the station that the whole world will experience.

[Protestors chanting in background]

PROTESTOR 2: There are other ways, renewables and other ways we can generate jobs that may be even more economically viable. If you Google like yourself, you'll see there are some studies that show that. But ultimately, in the long run, if we have a climate that that elevates, you know, three, four or five degrees, really twenty five hundred jobs in Alberta won't matter. The world will be on fire and the crisis will be worsened.

JENNIFER KEENE: Matt, did you hear the chanting there in the background?

MG: A lot, like a lot of noise going on the background. What's happening there?

JENNIFER KEENE: A lot of noise. Yes. Because there was a counter protest going on on the same day with pro oil sands supporters. I think they were chanting Tech.

MG: That's what it sounded like. Yes.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, that was actually a larger protest.

MG: That's interesting. What has Tech said that it's going to do to reduce carbon output because of this mine?

JENNIFER KEENE: Tech has promised to be a, quote: "best in class: when it comes to reducing its emissions. But as the panel pointed out, it hasn't really explained how it plans to achieve that. It also promises to have among the lowest greenhouse gas emission intensities in the oil patch. I spoke with the Pembina Institute, an environmental group here in Alberta, and they believe that tech is relatively progressive company, but that there aren't enough hard targets here in terms of keeping greenhouse gas emissions down. And they say that the review panel didn't go far enough to consider the impact of climate when it approved the project.

MG: What about the people in Fort McMurray, the people who are still feeling the effects of any number of different things, including the fires, including a downturn in the oil patch? What are they saying about the environmental cost of this project?

Yes, almost everyone I spoke to at some point would say, look, we care about the environment just like everybody else, but their idea for transitioning off fossil fuels is a little different. They say this is gonna be a gradual transition, that the global demand for oil is not going down. We still want to be a part of that. And I think they're tired of being the bullseye in the dartboard. You know, when it comes to climate change, I talk to Don Scott, the mayor of Fort McMurray, about this. He's a former member of the conservative government under Jim Prentice.

SOUNDCLIP

I think environmental are looking at any issue they can saying, you know, the oil sands causes every negative thing that's happening. That's nonsense. You know, it's if people look at the numbers themselves, they'll see that the oil sands is not a major contributor to carbon emissions. People have to look at these things for themselves. And at the same time, look at the economic benefits. When people go to the doctor or they have their children in an education program, these things do not come for free. There is a cost. Those costs are contributed to by the economic wealth that is produced by the oil sands.

JENNIFER KEENE: I think, Matt, I can hear some people saying, what, it's not a, you know, major contributor to carbon emissions.

MG: A question that people might be asking, yes.

JENNIFER KEENE: For sure. I what he I think he's talking about there is the contribution the oil sands make to global emissions. So according to the most recent data from Environment Canada, our contribution, Canada's contribution to global emissions was less than two percent, you know, round two percent, oil sands production represents about 10 percent of that total. That doesn't mean it isn't a significant source of emissions and that it isn't growing at a time when Canada's trying to cut back.

MG: What about the Alberta government? What is it saying about all of this?

JENNIFER KEENE: They are framing this as an issue of national unity. The Alberta government has asked for the decision on Tech and the Frontier Mine to be fast tracked. And Premier Kenney has said that if this mine is rejected and this is a quote, it would be a clear indication that there is no way forward for this country's largest natural resource. So you can hear he's obviously trying to give this decision as much symbolic weight as possible. I wanted to know how regular Albertans would feel, though, if this project was rejected. So when I was in Fort Mackay, I went to a restaurant called Mr Mike's Steakhouse. And I met a couple of locals there. One of them, Dave Kozlowski, is a retired heavy mechanic. He was an instructor at the college in Fort McMurray. And the other Mike Durocher is a co-owner of that steakhouse. And here's what they told me.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: If you limit innovation, you limit investment. If you limit growth, people who are go getters, they get up and go, do you want to do that with the oil patch? Because if you continue to say no to everything that Alberta needs, you're going to have a lot of people acting and thinking of foolishnesses like separation.

VOICE 2: Well, there's one other thing and it's the worst case scenario, but it's the gloom and doom is civil disobedience. I mean, we've seen it happen in Canada before and it can happen again.

JENNIFER KEENE: What do you mean? What form does that take?

VOICE 2: Well, typically, it's violence against the government. It's targeting things that are federal. And, you know, nobody even wants to think about that. But like I said, it's happened before in Canada. At some point in time, it's a way that the normal citizen can make a statement that has actually hurt politically. The same thing could happen here.

JENNIFER KEENE: Do you think people are that frustrated in Alberta?

VOICE 2: Oh yes.

VOICE 1: Well, yes, very much.

MG: Violence against the government. And that sounds serious.

JENNIFER KEENE: I know. I know. I mean, that may be overstating the case, but it the alienation is real.

MG: Well, it speaks to it, to your point, how high the stakes are.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, for sure. Absolutely. And how high the stakes are for the federal government.

MG: Given that, do we have any sense as to what the federal government is going to do, which way it's going to lean on this?

JENNIFER KEENE: We don't really. The environment minister asked. He was not available for an interview. Instead, his office issued a statement which says the government will consider a range of factors when they make a decision, including our commitments to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, to advancing reconciliation, to creating good paying middle class jobs and to growing the economy, unquote.

MG: So they're going to make everybody happy or nobody happy.

JENNIFER KEENE: Absolutely.

MG: Does it give you any sense as to where the government's going to go with it?

JENNIFER KEENE: I don't think that gives us much indication. I think all it tells us, Matt, is that they are trying to keep a lot of plates in the air and whatever they do, whatever decision they make, some people will be happy and some people will not. I don't envy them this decision, but they have said that they will make it by the end of February. If it's a yes, then I think it will be interpreted as a sign that there is a long term future for the oil sands. If it's a no, then it's a sign that Canada's climate commitments come first for this Liberal government.

MG: Either way, this is going to be big news.

JENNIFER KEENE: Yes, I think so.

MG: And certainly to people in Alberta and right across the country. Jennifer, thank you.

JENNIFER KEENE: You're welcome.

MG: The CBC's Jennifer Keene in Calgary. What do you think? Should the government approve this project? Let us know. You can email us at thecurrent@cbc.ca. Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC or head to the website cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the contact link. And you can hear more on this this morning on the CBC News podcast Front Burner. The news is next. And then why are so many big names walking away from the conservative leadership race? Our national affairs panel is here. And later. Eliud Kipchoge stunned the world when he ran a marathon in under two hours.

SOUNDCLIP

And you know, this guy's a freak athlete because, I mean, like, he kept running after he crossed the finish line. That was insane. [Laughter] Like usually when someone finishes a marathon like, oh, I did it and my nipples fell off. But I did it. [Laughter] And this guy's just like that was a good warm up. Now for the race, what are we doing out? Are we ready? I love how some people are now saying that the only reason he broke this record is because he had on special Nike running shoes. Yes. You know what? Why don't you go get those shoes? And you tell me how fast your time you. Go. We'll wait. Go get those shoes.

[Laughter and applause].

MG: Trevor Noah doesn't think it was the shoes. Many people who've tried on similar ones from Nike would beg to differ. And some are calling for those shoes to be banned from competition. That story coming up in half an hour. My name is Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current CBC Radio One. Stick around.

Back To Top »

'Maybe we don't know who we are anymore': Strategists weigh in on Conservatives' leadership contest

Guests: Alise Mills, Rachel Curran, Monte Solberg

MG: Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the shoes that are helping elite runners smash records and making us amateurs faster as well. But first, can the conservatives come together?

[Music: Theme].

MG: Well, there are still five months to go before conservatives elect a new leader. But as the race to replace Andrew Scheer heats up, or maybe I should say cools off. The story has largely been about who's out rather than who's in.

SOUNDCLIP

PIERRE POILIEVRE: Running for leader is a an absolutely 100 percent all consuming enterprise. Like nothing I've ever imagined. And so I made the decision. I wasn't prepared to do that.

RONA AMBROSE: I loved my 13 years in public service as an MP, a minister, and especially as leader of this great party. But right now, I'm focussed on making a difference through the private sector.

JEAN CHAREST: [French speech] Finalemant ben j'ai prend le decision de ne pas etre candidat parce que les regles de la cours de leadership sont tres serres.

MG: Jean Charest, Rona Ambrose and Pierre Poilievre polio announcing that they've decided to take a pass. They are among those who are not going to be running for the conservative leadership race. There are currently 10 declared candidates in that running. Only three of them could be considered well-known. Former Cabinet minister Peter Mackay, an Ontario MPs Erin O'Toole and Marilyn Gladu. Is a party that so few people want to lead adrift? For this week's national affairs panel, we're putting that question to conservatives. Alise Mills is a senior associate at Sussex Strategy Group and a party strategist. Monte Solberg, principal at New West Public Affairs and a former cabinet minister. And Rachel Curran is a senior associate at Harper and Associates Consulting. She formerly served as Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of Policy. Good morning to you all.

ALISE MILLS: Good morning.

RACHEL CURRAN: Good morning.

MONTE SOLBERG: Good morning.

MG: Alise Mills, we'll start with you. These are rather early days. How are you feeling about the leadership race thus far?

ALISE MILLS: Oh, I think in one word, uninspired, concerned by the list goes on. I don't understand where we are right now. It feels a little bit like where the liberals were after they said goodbye to Paul Martin. And I thinks this is to some degree can be considered an organic flow that a party has when a big leadership name or brand removes itself, like Mr. Harper. But we should be through that process by now. And we're only four points behind the Liberals. We raised more money than any other party in this country. We have a diverse group of supporters. It's, I would say, a policy rich party. And so it's concerning to me that we're not seeing more interesting candidates come out of the private sector. You know, I had thought that this would be the opportunity that we would see somebody sort of in their late 30s to mid 50s, see the opportunity to energize a party, a membership base that is starving for big ideas and passion.

MG: There are many people who thought that person might be Rona Ambrose, got high praise as the interim leader a few years back. Her decision not to run. I'll start with you, Alise. Just how did that strike you?

ALISE MILLS: I wasn't surprised. I had had a conversation with her at the press gallery dinner. I think it was a year ago. She is recently married. She spent a lot of time carving out a career in the private sector for herself. She you when you speak to her, you can feel there's a real states person quality to her now. And she's so engaged and passionate about the work that she's doing. I don't think this was ever, I don't think the this was about ambassadorship versus leader, because what I was trying to explain to people was that she wasn't going to take the leadership for the reasons I thought she wasn't going to take ambassadorship. But I am disappointed. But I also have so much respect for her. And I think women have the right to leave to be able to carve out a role where they can speak freely. And it's exciting for me to see her take that that role on.

MG: You also tweeted that women are largely ignored when it comes to your party.

ALISE MILLS: I think so. I find it shocking that someone like Jean Charest or Peter Mackay thing can I and I have no bones to pick with either those gentlemen. But I find it shocking that disparity between someone like Candice Bergen, who has demonstrated great agility on many files and I say probably took over quite a bit of the leader's duties, under Andrew's Scheer, especially during the SNC scandal, her and Lisa Raitt were amazing. So if Lisa Raitt is not there, why is nobody talking about Candice Bergen? Has anyone approached her? Does she have the ability to raise the funds? She should. And I don't think that, you know, you comparator Peter Mackay. I think she has just as much strength and ability as he does.

MG: Rachel Curran, are women largely ignored when it comes to the future of the Conservative Party?

RACHEL CURRAN: No, I don't think so. I would love to see Candice Bergen run. And, you know, I'm crossing my fingers that she'll announced her candidacy soon. You know, we have Marilyn Gladu you in the race. First female engineer in parliament. She's incredibly smart, incredibly articulate. I've always found her really, really impressive. I'll be interested in seeing how her race goes.

MG: Are you as concerned as Alisa is about the state of the race thus far?

RACHEL CURRAN: Not really. I mean, look, certainly there are high profile people who have tested the waters and said, yeah, this isn't right for me at this time. But truthfully, look at our previous national leader. Look at our previous prime ministers, whether it's Stephen Harper, whether Sean Chretien. Many of them were elected to the House of Commons at a relatively young age, worked their way up through the ranks, became the leader of the party, eventually became prime minister. Like, I'm not so sure that we need to be attracting people who are, you know, further on in their careers have moved into the private sector after a period in politics, are happily ensconced there, making a lot of money, enjoying time with their families finally.

MG: But there are big names that aren't running. And I just wonder why do you think? I mean, again, it's early, but why has the race thus far been then dominated by people who don't want this job?

RACHEL CURRAN: Well, I'm not sure it has. I mean, I think we've seen a lot of coverage of the people who have put their, sort of dip their toe in the water and said, yes, I'm not going to go for it this time. But those people already have a high profile because they have a fairly long political career behind them. They're also, they've moved into the private sector, moved into business and started developing successful careers there. But look at our previous leaders who arguably have done very good, a very good job without being necessarily high profile before they entered those races, before they became leaders of the party. So, yes, the people who are more well-known are getting more coverage because they say, you know, I looked at this, I decided not to do it. But if you look at our most successful leaders, I don't think that's necessarily come from that cohort. So I'm not discouraged that people at this stage of their careers have said, you know, I don't want to do it at this time. There is a tremendous sacrifice involved. And I don't think we've really talked about what that involves. But in again, in previous years, it hasn't been these kinds of people who have successfully become leaders of the party and become, you know, very successful long term prime ministers also.

MG: Monte Solberg, you've been listening. How are you feeling, looking ahead to the leadership convention in June?

MONTE SOLBERG: I'm optimistic. I think there's some very good candidates running. I'm anxious to see what they roll out as far as platforms. But I think there's a real hunger in this country for some new leadership. I think, you know, a lot of people demonstrated during the last election campaign that they were hugely dissatisfied with the Trudeau liberals, but perhaps didn't find enough appealing in the Conservatives. And in many respects, that's what this race is all about, is to put forward a winsome face of the Conservative Party, some new policy ideas. And I think that's all possible and likely in its upcoming leader.

MONTE SOLBERG: In that situation, as you say, with people who perhaps are disappointed with the Liberal Party, you wouldn't expect a bigger name to step up and say, you know what? I'm the person to lead this party and I'm the person to be the prime minister in waiting?

MONTE SOLBERG: You know, politics is a meat grinder at the best of times in the age of social media. It's especially tough. And, you know, you see high profile people like Pierre Poilievre politics say, you know, you just can't you just can't do it because it's just too much. And I get that. We've also raised the bar quite high, 300000 dollars and 3000 memberships across seven provinces, et cetera. I mean, it's not easy for people to jump in. And you really have to think twice about whether or not you want to do that. Conservatives believe strongly in the private sector. Not surprising to me that people want to spend time there and build something for their families.

MG: There's been a lot of talk about Peter Mackay strengths and weaknesses. People say that perhaps he's a front runner in this race, although I'm sure Erin O'Toole would dispute that. One of the things that people have raised is the fact that Peter Mackay is not fully bilingual. Have a listen to this from his campaign launch in Nova Scotia on Saturday.

SOUNDCLIP

[French speech]

MG: Quebec newspapers had a field day with that because of grammatical errors. The headline was Good luck, Mister. And they mocked him extensively for butchering the French language off of two teleprompters, can a person run for prime minister in waiting without speaking fluent French?

RACHEL CURRAN: Oh, good question, Matt. Look, I think the prime minister needs to be bilingual or reasonably so. They need to be able to communicate with everyone in the country. If you're running for the position of national leader of a party- look, I'm prepared to give someone time to work on that. Peter Mackay has said that he didn't have much occasion in the last few years in the private sector to work on his French. And so it's a bit rusty.

MG: There are a lot of people who say he had a lot of time as an MP and a cabinet minister.

RACHEL CURRAN: But if you don't use these things regularly, if you don't use language skills regularly, they tend to deteriorate. He has said he is taking French lessons daily and weekly and is committed to learning it. I'm optimistic that he, by the time the next federal campaign comes around, he will be at least conversant enough in French to communicate with francophones in Canada and to engage in debate with Mr. Yves Francois-Blanchet, for instance. So he's working on it. He has a way to go, absolutely. And I do think it's essential that the next prime minister be bilingual. But I'm confident Peter can get there.

MG: Monte Solberg Why hasn't Peter Mackay learned French people wonder why he didn't put the work and he could have had free lessons as an MP?

MONTE SOLBERG: Yes, he has learnt French. I mean, you can't just sort of cherry pick one example and say that he doesn't know the language.

MG: That's the example of his is campaign launch. I mean isn't that's an important example isn't it?

MONTE SOLBERG: Yes. Yes. Sure. Sure. And it's fine to criticize him. However, you know, you can go and Google Justin Trudeau French right now you'll find scores, stories and interventions of various kinds criticizing him for his French. Stephen Harper went through all of this. Every leader goes through this. And, you know, Peter Mackay is well aware that he has to become bilingual and has to speak French with proficiency in order to become the leader. If he doesn't, he won't become leader. That's all there is.

MG: Alise Mills is to say a red flag for you, a stumbling block?

ALISE MILLS: No, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. I think that where we're always scrambling to find the errors within our leaderships or those who come forward, and I think that I can I can easily give Peter a ton of runway here. And Rachel's point about the purpose of proficiency in language, I can speak to that personally when I lived in Ottawa, my French and my daughter's French, that was her first language, was French. And I'm a western Canadian. But coming back, it only took her a year and British Columbia's public schools to have no understanding of it. So I guess if you're going to prepare for leadership, you should be working on your French. But this country has so many other problems. I trust that Peter and every other leadership candidate will understand the commitment they have to make to be bilingual. And if they don't, I don't think they're going to round the posts. But I do want to say that that the serious leadership candidates are going to present on multi levels, policy, organization, language skills, the proficiency around that. They're going to present well, and we have to keep in mind, we may have 11 candidates right now, but only two have filed their papers. And the point that Monte makes, I think, is a very important one, that the bar is very high. And so it's not the circus of 2017. We had a lot of- we had quantity, but did we have quality? And I think that's what the membership is looking for. And I don't think Peter's missing that point. I don't think Erin O'Toole's missing that point. I don't think in's missing that point. But we have a lot of runway here to see what they're going to show us.

MG: You mentioned western Canadians. The Calgary MP Michelle Rebel Garner is also apparently thinking about running and offered a bit of a hint earlier in the week. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

The fact that we don't have a viable or significant Western candidate in the race right now is of concern to me, from the perspective of there's a lot of people in my province and in western Canada at large that feel very alienated and are questioning, even if we had a change of government, if there's a place for our part of the country in confederation long term. And because of that, we need to have somebody who is clearly able to articulate how people in my part of the country are going to get a fair deal.

MG: Monte Solberg, how important is it for the conservatives to have a candidate from the West?

MONTE SOLBERG: It's important that we have a candidate who can articulate some of the concerns of western Canada. I mean, I think Michelle's point is well taken. People need to speak with convincingly and with authority about the problems in every part of the country. And that is certainly the case in the West where there is alienation. There is talk of separatism and you know, Erin O'Toole, Marilyn Gladu and Peter Mackay, I'm sure all understand that. They're all make you know, there's no question Calgary is one of the first places that many of them will come. And of course, Erin O'Toole has already been to Calgary. So this is, you know, not something that anyone should take lightly. And I know none of them well.

MG: Part of this exercise is about picking a candidate who can win. But to some people, it's also about trying to figure out what the party is and what it stands for in 2020. Erin O'Toole, you mentioned him. Monty had a video in which he talked about taking the hyphen out of being a conservative. What does it mean, Alise Mills, in this moment for the party to try and figure out what it stands for?

ALISE MILLS: Well, I think that's part of I don't know if my two colleagues are going to agree with me, probably not. And I I'm a bit of a negative Nancy, about where the movement's going. I am one of those conservative that believes the movement drives the party. The party is the outcome of the movement. And that conservatism for someone like myself and my colleagues is about soul and the policy process. It's for me, I'm truly passionate about it. So what I'm beginning to see is that the outcome of where we are with a candidacies or lack thereof, as you've mentioned, is that I maybe we don't know who we are anymore. Maybe Stephen Harper when he was because he was our first leader, our first prime minister with the new Conservative Party per se, maybe we just haven't been able to evolve. And I would say that I mean, Rachel could speak to this more, but I you know, Mr. Harper, I call him dad, and he's been very influential in the party. But I wouldn't suggest that he wants us to stay in the 2011 moment, which is we even in the 2015 campaign, we were not campaigning for 2015 and we were not in the last election campaigning for 2019. We seem to be sort of stuck in the 2011 zone. And I just want to make this point. What I really am concerned about is I hear about from candidates and from conservatives what they're against. What I want to hear is what are we for and are we building for 2030?

MG: Rachael Curran, how much of a hold this Stephen Harper still have on this party?

RACHEL CURRAN: Yes, look, I agree with Alise's comments. I think that's very well stated actually. Stephen Harper will always have an influence because he's the one who founded the party because he's still enormously respected by members.

MG: Is that a tricky thing, though, for the party if it wants to move forward?

RACHEL CURRAN: No. I think, you know, conservatives need to figure out what they stand for going forward. As Alise says, we need to figure out what the identity of the Conservative Party is and what the policy platform is and what the vision for running the country is going forward. And I'm not sure we've taken that step post 2015. So, look, the Harper policy agenda, which I was very much a part of, I think works well for the time we were in. You know, we came into government 2006 exit in 2015. It is now time to figure out what the big challenges are that Canada's going to be facing over the next 10 to 20 years. What the Conservative Party's proposals are to address those and to differentiate themselves from other parties in ways that are clear and are compelling to voters.

MG: Monte, one of the reasons why people say the Conservatives struggled in the most recent election was around the issue of climate change and that there wasn't a clear climate change plan that would satisfy voters. If you take a look at those challenges that Rachel is mentioning, how important is it for the party to address that during the leadership race?

MONTE SOLBERG: Oh, it's hugely important. I think one of the challenges for any potential leader is to figure out how to reconcile a convincing policy and climate change, one that we can speak about with legitimate concern and add resource development. And I think, you know, that the crown of the conservative leadership will largely belong to somebody, to a leader who can figure out how to communicate them. On the one hand, that we have to be concerned about climate change and have to take it seriously. On the other hand, not sort of give away the idea that we need to develop our resources to other countries in the world. And I think everyone's aware of that now. They must understand that after the last election.

ALISE MILLS: Matt, if I could just say this and just interject just on to leverage off of what Monty is saying here, which is absolutely correct about, the problem is that conserve as stuck in this. This [unintelligible], this merry go round on the carbon tax thing and climate change and because we're the only party and the only I would say membership that 100 percent supports resource development and manufacturing jobs that are connected, because they are connected, they go hand in hand and. But what we're doing is we're leaving behind emerging technologies. Small, medium business owners, entrepreneurs that this party traditionally has always supported. We're not talking about other things. And that's my concern, is that we're so concerned that if we don't keep banging the resource drum. And full disclosure, I've worked for the oil and gas and forestry and still do. But I'm going to say this. We need to diversify. And Canadians have told us that, yes, I wanted to vote for you. Your economic plans are great. I support your tax plans, but it's not enough. And I don't think our party looks or sounds like the country. And Rachel is right. We have to catch up and we haven't done the work. And if you don't do the work, you don't get the reward.

MG: Rachel, one of the other things people are talking about and the candidates are talking about this in the last couple of days is whether they'd march in pride parades. That's all well and good. But what sort of damage does it do to the party when people who want to lead it are on TV, it seems like every day, saying that one's sexuality is a choice or that LGBTQ is a liberal term or that being gay isn't a black and white thing. What does that do to the party, Rachel?

RACHEL CURRAN: I think it causes tremendous damage. And the problem is that these folks are fringe candidate.

MG: But they still want to run the party.

RACHEL CURRAN: Well, sure they do. But anyone at this point can say I'm a prospective candidate for the leadership of the CBC and go on TV and say, you know, I've got, you know, Derek Sloan's theories of sexual fluidity on season TV with Evan Solomon. So the problem is, when these folks get attention like that, I do think it causes damage, the party reputational damage, certainly. It also distracts from the real issues that we should be focussing on. The big question we've been talking about is how do we balance resource development and environmental protection? You were talking in your previous segment about Western alienation, like this is really the big question that the country is facing and we need to be having a robust debate about that. You know, and instead we're talking about these issues that are- these issues were long settled. Frankly, this issue is settled for me back in the mid 80s. I grew up on the west coast of B.C. so I don't know why we're still talking about this.

MG: In the last minute and a half that we have I'm going to ask you three, quickly, just briefly, does it put any difficulty in terms of uniting the party, these issues, in terms of trying to figure out what the party actually stands for?

RACHEL CURRAN: No, I look, some people may disagree with me. I don't think these are views held by a significant number of Conservative Party members. I think they are a distraction at best. They think party members want to move on. They want to focus on issues that matter, particularly around the economy. They don't want to spend time talking about this [unintelligible] long since made their peace with same sex marriage.

MG: Alise, are you worried about party unity on issues like this or no?

ALISE MILLS: These are the single issues social conservatives and I am concerned that social conservatives that I'm connected to and I share some issues with in regards to, you know, tax supporting, you know, tax cuts for child care and all that stuff. That is a social conservative idea. And but this is just bigotry. This is just hate. And unfortunately, the Republicans in the states have been dealing with this as well. And I feel the party will naturally clean out this type of behaviour. But I love the fact that we have all stood united against that type of hate and bigotry.

MG: Monte, just briefly, is the party as united as the other two guests are suggesting?

MONTE SOLBERG: Oh, I think so. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is the economy.

[Laughter].

MONTE SOLBERG: And that is where candidates are going to focus. And if they go anywhere else, they're not going to succeed.

MG: It's just the beginning of the race. We'll talk more as it unfolds. Great to speak with you all this morning. Thanks. Alise Mills, senior associate with Sussex Strategy Group. Monte Solberg is the principal at New West Public Affairs and Rachel Curran, senior associate at Harper and Associates Consulting. Speaking of races, still to come, the high tech running shoes that are so bouncy that some experts say they amount to technological doping. I'll give a test drive to the Nike Vaporfly in about 90 seconds time. Stick around. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

Back To Top »

Nike's Vaporfly high-tech shoe fuelling an athletic arms race, Olympian says

Guests: Krista DuChene, Alex Hutchinson, Reid Coolsaet

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. I love running. And if you are a runner or you just follow the sport, you might have heard of the Nike Vaporfly. Since these shoes came onto the scene a couple of years ago, elite runners have been smashing record after record. Amateurs are snapping these shoes up as well. So I went window shopping to find out why.

SOUNDCLIP

MG: So we are at Black Toe Running Inc. which is a great independent running store in the heart of downtown Toronto and we're going to go inside and check out some really expensive running shoes.

MG: [To shop assistant] Can I try these on? Excellent.

SHOP ASSISSTANT: I would say we're selling every single pair that comes in the store.

MG: So what sort of difference does it actually make? I mean, I've never worn these shoes before. I wear a different kind of shoes. What sort of difference does it actually make?

SHOP ASSISSTANT: It's the first shoe out there that I'll actually give you a huge amount of cushioning, but will also propel you forward and keep your efficiency going. Or in terms of improve your efficiency.

MG: As we're talking, you're actually selling a pair of these shoes. Give me a second.

MG: [To customer] Hey, I'm Matt. Tell me about these shoes and why did you buy them?

CUSTOMER: It's the top technology right now. I mean, I'm an average to below average runner. Just to add boost. You can get right on the edge as you can get. I'll take it.

MG: How much better do you think they'll make you?

CUSTOMER: Hopefully, hopefully noticeably. That's the plan anyways, hopefully.

MG: Such an interesting thing. These shoes are not cheap. They're good, but they're not cheap. They'll set you back up with 330 dollars worth of maybe for some runners. Studies have shown that the Vaporfly can make runners 4 percent faster and you can feel that difference as soon as you strap them on.

SOUNDCLIP

MG: So that you notice, I mean immediately, is they're really light. Even in walking with these, you really you notice there's a bounce to them. What's going on with the foam that's in these?

SHOP ASSISSTANT: It's a very responsive foam where the foam actually springs back very, very quickly. And so what you're doing is you're sinking down, your stabilizing in terms of on that carbon fibre play and then it's snapping back and propelling you back it up and forwards.

MG: So the foam is a lot thicker than you would see normally on a normal running shoe. There is, what, two inches of foam? That's it at the back at the very least. And then this line that kind of runs alongside it, and I guess that's where that carbon fibre plate kind of is that gives you the controversial little edge. I'm going to run around the store a little bit. Thank you very.

SHOP ASSISSTANT: Your very welcome.

MG: So the question is, does a shoe like the vapour fly actually provide elite runners with an unfair advantage? A ruling from the sport's governing body is expected on Friday and it will have a huge implication for athletes at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics. Some reports are saying that the rules around the running shoe will tighten, but that these shoes in particular will escape a ban. Reid Coolsaet is a two time Olympic marathoner hoping to qualify for those Olympics. Krista DuChene is hoping to make it to Tokyo as well. She took part in the 2016 Olympics and came in third at the 2018 Boston Marathon. And Alex Hutchinson writes about sports science for The Globe and Mail, an outside magazine. He's also a runner. Good morning.

REID COLLSAET: Hi, Matt.

KRISTA DUCHENE: Good morning.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Alex, we'll start with you. How much of a game changer has this shoe, the Vaporfly, been to the world of running over the last few years?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: It's been a complete step change. It's hard to think of a major record in road running that hasn't been broken in the last two years. And it goes right down to, you know, at the local level, people trying to qualify for Boston. Those standards are going to change. So many people are running faster.

MG: You talk about records. In October, there were two big records that were smashed by Kenyan marathoners. Eliud Kipchoge and Brigid Kosgei made history wearing an advanced model of these Vaporfly shoes. Tell us about what happened.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yes. So there's two different things. Elliott Kip Shoji became the first guy to run a marathon in less than two hours. But it wasn't an official marathon. He didn't follow the rules that you have to follow to set a world record. He had pacemakers which were not for the whole race, got to draft behind. And he also had these sort of moon boots, which are the reputed next generation of the Nike Vaporfly. No one really knows what's in them because they haven't been released yet. The very next day, a woman, another woman set the official world record for the women's marathon in Chicago, running 2:14, which was a minute faster, more than a minute faster than the previous world record, Brigid Kosgei.

MG: Moon Boots?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: If I could show you a picture over the air, you'd say, yes. Okay. That's a step beyond running shoes. They really look like platform shoes.

MG: They do. I mean, there's a huge amount of foam. I was talking about the foam on those vapour flies that I was wearing yesterday. The foam on these advanced shoes is huge.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yeah, it looks like a, sort of joke, sort of a 70s throwback platform dance shoe or something like that.

MG: Reid Coolsaet, how surprised were you when you saw what those two athletes were able to accomplish with this type of shoe?

REID COLLSAET: I think by last fall, I wasn't as surprised. You know, the shoe came out in 2016 and nobody really knew what it was. And by 2018, people started taking notice. And that four percent, you know, really started to make sense that, you know, people were running a lot faster. And by 2019 especially after Eliud Kipchoge set the official world record in 2018. It's just been commonplace for people to run about a minute or two minutes faster than they have before.

MG: Four percent doesn't seem like an awful lot. But how much of a difference does that actually make, Reid?

REID COLLSAET: I mean, you know, at first they say four percent and running an economy, which maybe translates to two and a half percent or over the course a marathon. And that's still a couple of minutes.

MG: A couple minutes?

REID COLLSAET: Yes, I mean, two minutes in a marathon is a big deal. Eliud Kipchoge when he broke the world record, it was by about a minute and a half. So it's a very significant margin.

MG: You've been running a long time. Did you ever expect to see these sorts of breakthroughs that we're seeing right now?

REID COLLSAET: No, no. And in fact, if someone had shown me the current Vaporflies back in 2016, I would have laughed out. I would've thought, no, there's no way. The shoe looks too big. I was trying to run in the smallest like the lightest shoe I could get my hands on. And now it's gone the opposite way where you have this a lot of foam under your foot. But it is very light and it just moves really well. And it's very springy. It's got just the combination of the carbon plate, this new foam and the geometry of the shoe. They've really hit it. They're just perfectly and it works really well.

MG: Krista, when you take a look at the records that are falling, how big of a role do you think the Vaporfly has played in those breakthroughs?

KRISTA DUCHENE: No one can dispute the fact that the records now are completely different than those that were broken. You know, five, six years ago. Like Reid said, no one really noticed too much, didn't think a lot about it. But now when you look back and you think, you know, in Canada, which athletes for these shoes when these records were smashed, you know, you definitely can't deny the fact that the shoe has a significant part in that.

MG: And so that's great news for the athletes that are wearing the shoes. What about for the ones that aren't? If you take a look at the period leading up to the 2016 Olympics, for example, and everybody's wearing different kinds of shoes, where does it leave those elite runners who are wearing a shoe that's not going to give you that four percent boost?

KRISTA DUCHENE: Well, a perfect example of something like that, where you can look at athletes who are wearing it and those who weren't, it's the U.S. trials with the American women. Shalane Flanagan and Amy Hastings Cragg. They had the Nike shoe with the carbon plate in it and Care Gaucho was fourth and she was wearing Skechers, which didn't have the plate. And, you know, after the race, she said they were better than me. I did everything I could. But now looking back, she's saying, you know, I didn't do everything I could because I didn't have a shoe that was competitive with them. And, you know, I think the tricky part is that it was pretty secretive back then and no one knew. And it wasn't a fair playing field.

MG: So you could say that maybe she just wasn't as good as those other athletes. But your point is that she wasn't on the level playing field, that even if she wasn't as good, it didn't matter because they had some sort of advantage.

KRISTA DUCHENE: Right. And we can't deny that now. I think in the beginning, people were skeptical and people didn't know what this Nike shoe was all about, back then when only a few athletes were wearing these shoes. But no one can deny the fact that it definitely made a difference. But, you know, we'll never know, I guess, unless that race is run again and that just won't happen.

MG: What shoe do you run in?

KRISTA DUCHENE: Well, Saucony does make carbon fibre play shoe. So when I ran in Berlin in the fall, I did where the prototype and we will be launching our shoe in June, which will compete with the the Nike brands. It's interesting because at this point my career, I'm happy to be wearing this shoe and to be with a company I've been with for many years. But at the same time, you know, I completely understand why other athletes are faced with difficult decisions, because if their brand isn't making a shoe that competes, how can they get into a race with others and expect to do as well as them when it's just not, you know, equal to start?

MG: Deena Kastor is an American marathon record holder, Olympic medallist. She runs with ASICS. Have a listen to what she told us.

SOUNDCLIP

Deena Kastor: Nike Vaporfly seems to be a hot topic in every running circle. Even as we speak, every shoe company has had an answer to the vapour fly and already created this this great response across the board. But I also know that we do need to govern what is allowable in shoes or we're going to be in an age where we have springs and motors. I know that Kipchoge, when he broke the two hour barrier in 2019, which was a super heroic feat, his shoes had springs in them. So that is, it's cheating. And so I don't really respect that performance is undoubtably the best marathoner in the in the world. Hands down. But I would love to see that two hour barrier being broken by someone that is wearing traditional shoes and not springs on the spring loaded, spring loaded shoes.

MG: Alex Hutchinson, how widespread is that belief that that if you run in those moon boots, as you call them, the alpha fly shoes, that that's cheating?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: I don't know. I would say it's either 51 percent or 49 percent. There's a huge controversy in the running community. I think where everyone agrees that there should be a level, there should be some way of having, if not a perfectly level playing field, some sort of a level playing field. But where it gets tricky is how we identify what's cheating. You heard Deena say that the Kipchoge's shoes have springs in them. And, you know, I would disagree with that characterization that they have carbon fibre plates in them to stiffen and they have thick foam that acts as spring.

MG: But they give him some sort of advantage.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: They give him an advantage. So that's the thing is, is it do we think that there is a certain element in the shoe that's cheating or is it just if one shoe is better than, way better than, everyone else's, no matter what the cause, do we have to find some way of levelling the playing field?

MG: Part of this argument is about whether those shoes should be banned. What is the argument to take those shoes out of the picture entirely?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yes, so I think that the fundamental argument is the one we've just been talking about, that it's not fair if some people have something that makes you two minutes faster than everyone else and other people don't have access. The superficial argument is there're a carbon fibre plates and shoes. We've never done that before. Therefore, we should ban carbon fibre plates because they're springs. And that's actually, I think, a misreading of what's actually happening. Running shoes had carbon fibre plates since the late 80s. Brooks had a carbon fibre plate shoe at that point.

MG: Nike says, and this is a quotation:"We respect world athletics and the spirit of their rules. We do not create any running shoes that return more energy than the runner expends". What does that mean?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: What it means is, is that there's no motor in the shoe. It's every shoe has a spring in it. Every shoe has a mid sole that when you land on it, it compresses. And when you take off. It springs back and pushes you forward. Nike, basically, they had this thick layer of super light foam that acts as a bigger spring than we've ever seen before. And the carbon fibre plate helped stabilize that and prevents your foot from bending in ways that would waste energy.

MG: I mean, even when I wore them yesterday, you felt a little bounce from the shoe as you ran along.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: And you can feel it kind of pushing you forward, you step in those shoes and you feel it right away. So the question is, is it carbon fibre plates that are unfair or is it having a shoe that's better that's unfair? And I think it's the second option. It's the level playing field and it's independent of what specific ingredient of the shoe we're talking about.

MG: Krista DuChene, you see this as some sort of unfair advantage that these shoes are offering?

KRISTA DUCHENE: Well, I mean, we can't deny the fact that we're advancing in sport in the technology of the shoe. That's a great thing. I think it's the leading brand that approached this in a sneaky way. And, you know, they're not asking for forgiveness or permission to do what they're doing. So I think it's a matter of trust and knowing, okay, they've done this. What's going to be next? And I think we need parameters around what is considered to be a fair shoe. So if all the brands make carbon fibre plates, great. But there's also talk that Kipchoge wearing a shoe that had multiple fibre plates in it. So, I mean, where do we draw the line?

MG: Why do you think people are so hot over this, Reid?

REID COLLSAET: Well, I think, you know, people haven't readjusted what is a fast marathon now. So, you know, for a long time, I always wanted to break the 2:10 barrier. And I think if I had this shoe four or five years ago, 2:10 wouldn't have been my goal anymore. You know, breaking 2:09 would have been my goal. So people have to readjust what's fast. And it's kind of wiping out a minute or two from the previous generation of marathoners. There's been this really small progression, you know, over the years and in the world record and kind of trailing back from there. And then all of a sudden you get this quantum leap.

MG: Do you look back on races that you've run, read and wonder what your time would have been if you were wearing those shoes?

REID COLLSAET: Yes, I do for sure, especially like my personal best was at the time, 20 seconds off the Canadian record. I think it's pretty fair to say that the shoe would have offered me more than 20 seconds. But of course, no one had the shoe then. So, it's not like I wish I had it then. You know, I'm happy for I kind of like I kind of liked it before the shoe came around because it was just much more simple. But, you know, now that the shoes here. If you're not playing the game again, you're left behind.

MG: And so that is really interesting, because whatever world athletics decides will have a real impact on your own career, won't it?

REID COLLSAET: Yeah, I mean, it very well could. I really don't think they're going to ban the current Vaporfly. I do. I wouldn't know the exact percentage, but I would say it's safe to say that most of the athletes have qualified for the Olympics already for 2020 and the marathon use the Vaporfly in their qualifying race. And if they were to ban the current version right now, it'd be quite unfair to anybody else still looking to meet that qualification standard.

MG: So you're looking to meet the qualification standard. What are you going to do? The shoes now there. What are you going to do?

REID COLLSAET: Well, I'm going to wear them for sure. As I'm getting older, I need everything.

MG: This is important to say. You're going to wear these shoes despite the fact that you have been running in a different shoe for a long time.

REID COLLSAET: Yes. I was sponsored by New Balance from 2008 to the end of 2019. I had to make a tough decision. You know, New Balance, it was you know, they make great shoes and they have a prototype with a soft foam and a carbon plate. The next prototype, which sounds like it's going to be something they can compete with the Vaporfly won't come out till September. I need to qualify this spring for the Olympics. So, you know, it's just, unfortunately, it's got to be too late for that shooter to help me out. And, you know, the vapour fly is tried and true. You know, there's no denying that it's a fast shoe. The other interesting thing with the show is because of the foam and it really helps you on the end of a marathon because you don't beat up your legs as much and theoretically you can train more as well. So you know that 35 K run can now be 38 K run or you know, you run a little bit faster and it doesn't beat up your body as much.

MG: That's a big decision to break one contract, to go with another pair of shoes. I mean, what was in the balance for you as you tried to figure out what to do?

REID COLLSAET: I mean, you know, if it wasn't an Olympic year, I'm not sure what I would have done. But I mean, the way I see it, I'm 40 years old. I've made two Olympics. And if I'm going to make a third one, this is going to be it. I don't have my eyes on 2024, so I have one shot to qualify. So one marathon. I'll run one marathon in the spring and it's going to have to be fast enough to get to the Olympics. And if not, you know, that's it for the Olympics. So, you know, I need all the advantages I can get.

MG: Krist DuChene, what's it like for you listening to that? You know, Reid is also your coach.

KRISTA DUCHENE: Yes. I mean, I completely understand and agree with what he's doing. It's a no brainer. If you're going to get on the line and compete with others, you have to keep in mind that, you know, two minutes is a significant amount of time that can make or break a spot on an Olympic team. So, of course, I agree with that. And I guess I feel fortunate that Saucony and he's making a shoe that I think is comparable. So I'm not faced with that tough decision.

MG: You haven't been tempted?

KRISTA DUCHENE: No, not at all. No.

MG: Is there some sort of arms race now for four runners when it comes to these shoes? The idea of this levelled playing field gets thrown out the window when everybody's trying to one up the other competitor in terms of how fast the shoe can be. Is there now some sort of shoe arms race, Krista?

KRISTA DUCHENE: Well, I mean, it's a business, right? These companies are making shoes that can compete with the leading brand. And yes, I guess so.

MG: Reid, is that arms race already well underway?

REID COLLSAET: Oh, yes, for sure. I mean, every company in the last couple years seems to have a prototype with a higher stack underneath your foot; a carbon plate in there and softer foam. And I would like to see World Athletics put a limit on the stack hype. And that would allow the shoes, all the shoe companies to get to a level playing field quicker than, you know, kind of one upping each other time and time again.

MG: You've been listening, Alex Hutcherson. I mean, I just wonder whether there are other sports where we have seen similar races like this, similar fights when it comes to technology to try and make the sport faster and faster or better and better. And then people said, hold on a second. We need to put the brakes on because there is some sort of unfair advantage here.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yeah, I think there's a couple of clear examples that we can follow. One is the swimsuits back in 2008, 2009. These high tech swimsuits with more buoyancy and less water resistance.

MG: Michael Phelps, for example, would be wearing those.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yes. Although he held it for a while because his sponsor wasn't- Speedo wasn't one of the first to develop it. And then he realized that he wasn't invincible without the right swimsuit. And what happened is all the world records got wiped out in pretty much every meet in 2008. Then the same thing happened in 2009 because they kept developing. So in 2010, they banned those swimsuits. They said, that's enough. We're going to stop it. And I think it was just like with the running shoes, one level of innovation was fine. But when they realized every year the swimsuits were going to get better, every six months, there was a new model. They said, we have to stop it. And so I think that's kind of the sensation people are getting with running.

MG: You have your own story with these shoes. What is it?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Well, I have a pair of Vaporflies in my in my closet. Two and a half years ago, when they first came out, I got a review pair from a magazine I was writing for Runner's World and they arrived just after I had stopped writing for the magazine so I couldn't review them after all. And at that time, it really didn't feel right to where I couldn't bring myself to put them on. I just thought, you know, it's cheating. This is this rare thing. Very few people had them. I ended up about a year later. I wore them for one 5K and, yes, they feel pretty awesome. And I put him back in the closet where they've been gathering dust ever since. But, you know, honestly, my sensation now is that because all the other companies have them, because everyone's running in them. I'm planning to run a marathon this spring. And might my feeling right now I've been getting some pushback from people, but I think I might pull him out of the closet and run a marathon i them in the spring.

MG: Why have you been resistant to this if everybody's wearing them and if we've heard from two lead athletes that they truly do make a difference? Why have you been resistant?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Well, yeah, there's one clear difference is that I'm not trying to qualify for the Olympics. When I when I go out and run, I'm fundamentally, at this point in my life, I'm measuring myself against myself. I measure myself against how fast I was last week or last month or last year. So, I mean, I could I could get faster at 10K by running nine instead dead, but it's not very satisfying. So this whole controversy with the shoes has really forced me to think really carefully about what it is that I want to get out of my races. And so when I think about this marathon, which is a long way from me, I'm usually a 5K and 10K runner. What I'm thinking about is not so much could I be two minutes faster? What I'm thinking about is what Reid said about could I not have my legs feel like someone's hammering on and quite as badly for the last 10k? Could it make it a slightly more pleasant experience? And so I'm tempted to try it for that. For that reason.

MG: Am I naive? Reid In wondering whether a 350 dollar pair of shoes that people feel like they need to buy to be, not at the front of the pack, but they are competing and part of the game that that risks losing the purity of the sport? And what makes running, which is that you just lace up your shoes and out you go?

REID COLLSAET: Yes, I hear what you're saying. You know, I think a big appeal to running for a lot of people is the simplicity of it. And when advanced technology comes in, for sure, there's, you know, adds another element, of course, like cycling, you see people just they call it buying fitness. Right. You just you go from a two thousand dollar bike to your ten thousand dollar bike and all of a sudden you're faster. I think a lot of people don't want to be left behind. And yes, sure, it's a lot of money to spend. And, you know, maybe you buy the shoes, you only break them out on race day. And for sure, it's not as simple as it used to be, but it's still fun to run fast. And you get to run a bit faster in these Nike Vaporflies.

MG: What do you love about running, Reid?

REID COLLSAET: I mean, I like setting goals and try to achieve them and just setting a goal, putting your mind to it, putting all the hard work in.

MG: Krista, if you take the shoe argument and put it aside for a moment, what do you love about running?

KRISTA DUCHENE: Oh, I mean, I guess I look back to when I was a child and I often tell people like my mom used to lock me out of the house when I had too much energy and make me run around and around before I was allowed back in. And so it's just kind of who I am, who I was made to be. And, you know, everyday when I wake up and I want to run, I I'm glad and I'm pleased and I love the sport. And, you know, like Reid said, obviously setting goals is, you know, a key to the sport. But just I'm enjoying it for everything it is. And I don't have to search for motivation to run or do workouts or to train at this level. And all people ask me that. And just when that motivation isn't there, I'll know that it's changed me.

MG: What about you, Alex? I mean, if you go beyond the shoes and the watch and all the other gear, what's at the heart of the sport for you?

ALEX HUTCHINSON: There's a lot of different things and one of them is I just love getting outside and being alone with my thoughts and feeling my body moving. But when you take it to the next level of, you know, why don't I just jog every day, why do I race sometimes? Why do I do hard workouts a couple times a week? I love the feeling of challenging myself. I love the feeling of trying to figure out where that razor's edge is, of how hard I can push on one given day and whether that's any farther than it was last week. These days, it's usually a little bit less far. But anyway. Yes, I love testing myself and just feeling where my limits are.

MG: It's addictive.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Yes. Yes. Especially once you experienced the feeling of doing something you never thought you would be able to do. You want to experience that feeling again.

MG: It's great to talk to you. Goodbye, everybody. Thank you.

ALEX HUTCHINSON: Goodbye.

KRISTA DUCHENE: Thank you.

REID COLLSAET: Goodbye.

MG: Reid Coolsaet, two time Olympic marathoner. Krista DuChene is a third place finisher at the Boston Marathon. Also competed in the 2016 Olympics. And Alex Hutcherson writes about sports science and is the author of Endure Mind, Body and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance. That is our program for today. Coming up on CBC Radio One Q Wil Wheaton of Star Trek is on Speak with Laurie Brown about being a child star and embracing being an Uber nerd. There is nothing wrong with being a nerd. That's coming up on CBC Radio One. We're going to leave you now with words from the Gwich'in elder Bertha Francis, who died last week at the age of 79. She was the former host of the CBC North Gwich'in language show 'Nantaii'. Ty worked on many projects for the Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute and played an important role as a translator during the negotiations for the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in the 90s. In September of 2018, she spoke with CBC about what her language meant to her. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current, or as you'd say in Gwich'in, 'Hai'.

SOUNDCLIP

BERTHA FRANCIS: Language is a hard language to learn where they're teaching it in schools. But, you know, I've been in immersion style might do it. For me, my parents took us out on the land and both of them speak fluently in the language and we hear it around all the time.

[Singing]

BERTHA FRANCIS: For me with my language, I know where I come from, who I am. I have too many people who are elders in the community every which way I could I did. That's how much I wish our language could come by. Because when me and Yohan here we talk in our language to each other, with doing nothing butlaught. We're very happy people. When we talk on language.

[Singing]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Wednesday January 29, 2020 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This